Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They mean to bankrupt social security. That's the objective the same way it was wielding fannie mae/ freddie mac to it's wildest extremes of gibberish. If you make a population desperate enough they will do anything for you. Anything.
I don't read from The Nation since it is the farthest left magazine in the nation but maybe the author mentioned the fact that for nearly 50 years after SS was created the amounts paid and on what amounts were determined by the original law and it never called for taxing every penny of every wage earner.
I remember in the 1960s when I was always paid up by October for the year and got a "raise" the last two months. I made a lot less than that $106,000 you are quoting but then the Congress has raised this amount drastically in a relatively short time.
Who expanded benefits for people who didn't pay for them? Republicans did. You voted for a man who shot you in the head Roys. You just don't want to believe it I guess, and continue beating on the cop trying to get that gun away from your head.
I see that you don't know that the SS people announced that they would run shorter this year than before because of the influx of the boomers. They also said that this would be a one year thing and would smooth out again next year.
Since you want to talk political party lets look back at when the Congress started spending the annual "surplus" funds for foreign aid in an attempt to "buy" friends. It was the mid-50s and we had a Republican President and a strongly Democrat controlled Congress. We can't blame Eisenhower, completely, and not the Congress, either, since they had to provide the money and he had to sign the bill to make it law. However, I do blame the Congress from that time on and it was basically Democrat controlled for all of 40 years.
Yep, you could do some studying of this situation and see how Democrats helped very much toward destroying a good thing that a Democrat President and his Democrat Congress created back in the 30s. Your hatred of Bush just doesn't make a lot of sense where SS is concerned.
Jet you've lost sight of facts. No one human being can create our civilization. It takes many hands. The collective you are railing against is WE the PEOPLE. I can certainly agree that our financial system needs radical reform, but you've clouded your eyes to the grander picture being too focused on one fact that changed your ability to perceive anything beyond that one fact. Yes, I do understand you believe all others are the one with the beam in their eye. You have an alternative beam.
If we mean to be a nation of truth and justice... if we mean to pay our way in life, make an honest living, and have a government that reflects that in it's policy... we need to address the design of finance. Abolishing the Fed may be called for but until another design of finance is hammered out there is no point railing at the machine. Go to the drawing board and design a better finance system.
How did the nation manage its money before 1913? Surely you know since you are so concerned about the necessity of the Fed and its Bernanke.
Do you really not understand the sillyness of what you just keyed? If you were concerned about it being a "fair and just way" This would mean
A) That these millionaires and billionaires would receive Social Security equivelant to their payment in. I can see you moaning and groaning about their $100K social security checks monthly.
B) Most millionaires and billionaires would still not pay if you increased it above the $106K threashhold.. The fact that you dont understand why is why you dont understand much else about how the wealthy obtain wealth and allow it to grow.
Hint.. Most "wealthy" people are wealthy from being self employed, stocks, bonds, investments, real estate, etc.. NOT PAYCHECKS..
Are you suggesting that my tax lady made me pay a much higher rate as a self-employed taxpayer? Of course, even wealthy people get to pay that withholding tax. Not on their millions or billions of income but on the first whatever the top is now. If not they are cheating.
Social Security does not work. It might work for the government, but if it worked for the taxpayers and the citizens, they'd be sitting on a huge chunk of capital instead of 100% securities in the US Treasuries.
Tell me sickofnyc, if the US Govt would suddenly go bankrupt, how much of that Social Security do you think you would receive considering EVERY DIME IS IN US SECURITIES which would become worthless upon a bk?
In addition, the fact that you think its "working" is rather sad. We have millions of poor seniors in this nation sitting in senior housing which was never part of the deal because its not working. We've needed to give these people utilities like heat, electricity, phone service, medical, again, because its not working. Social Security is one of the biggest failures in this nation because it petrays a false sense of security and perpetuates poverty among our seniors.. Thats not success.. its actually quite pathetic..
Social Security was never meant to be something a person could live on but it was not a bad plan when it was created. It is the Congress that has ruined the system by spending the money paid into it.
Most of the money that my wife and I invested outside Social security has seen a severe drop because of our system's banking failure. If we had more than 10 years for the comeback we may be ok but until that comes about I believe that we can put the SS money to good use since we don't have the time to wait for the comeback.
Originally Posted by jetgraphics If you assume that your right to life, liberty and property ownership are an endowment of the collective, then you will not understand.
I said no such thing and you know it.
Apparently you do not understand paraphrasing, conditionals and assumption.
In the Declaration of Independence, it plainly states that the inalienable rights are endowments of our Creator, not the collective people.
And that those who form the government are delegated powers to secure those rights. That does not require "the collective people" to secure those rights. Nor do they have a duty.
To illustrate the point:
"There is a clear distinction in this particular case between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional right as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land (*common law) long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. "
Hale vs Henkel, 201 U.S. 43.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady
There are natural seasons to a human beings life. We are vulnerable as children and elderly. A means to provide for ourselves is all this program was ever designed to manage. People paid for an insurance product upfront, this is not 'free money'.
That is what you believe.
The law says something else.
Don't believe me - go write a polite letter to "your" congressman, and ask:
1. Do participants in Social Security have a property right to entitlements?
2. Do participants in Social Security surrender rights?
3. Does the Congress have an obligation to pay entitlements?
4. Is there a law compelling all Americans to enroll before they can work in the United States of America (don't use "United States").
5. Is there any law punishing Americans who do not enroll nor participate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady
They pay a mortgage on their homes for 30 yrs, once it's paid, the bank doesn't get the to claim any rights. You already know how I feel about not being let off the hook for property taxes, but we're digressing.
If this were your paycheck on friday and your boss decided he'd retroactively change your agreed upon rate of pay, you'd see this as a violation of your rights to compensation. Instead you're fixated upon the fact that it's a pooled money arrangement of deferred compensation that, mixed up in a magic hat of anti collectivism, mysteriously transforms social security beneficiaries into pirates of the US treasury robbing youth of it's luster.
So name who steals what more carefully if you don't mind. The real crooks get by on murder every time a false accusation is made and injustice compounded thrice.
Your rebuttal is an attack on American socialism, so I won't argue that.
I am opposed to socialism, as it is a scheme to rob and enslave.
But the "beneficiaries" of FICA are NOT the enumerated masses. The real beneficiary is CONGRESS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics Under American law, my right to life, liberty and property ownership comes from my Creator, and not the collective people. And the cooperative organization known as government was instituted to SECURE those inalienable rights - until consent waives them.
If you embrace that basic concept the rest falls into place.
It's not just the duty of your government to secure those inalienable rights. It's your duty, as part of our collective
No, it's NOT.
You are under no duty to secure my rights unless YOU consent to that obligation.
If you're compelled to secure my rights, YOU are a slave.
And involuntary servitude was outlawed in 1865.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady
We the People, to insist that those inalienable rights are secured for all. ACLU represents ALL, not just liberals as some have been coached to believe. The military defends ALL citizens, not just a few chosen favorite friends. Much as people would want to covet rights only for themselves, those rights have no real worth unless they're upheld by all for all. The distinctly separate lifestyle choice of Amish is not possible without We the People backing them up. See that? Separate but equal. Independent, yet part of a collective. You have no freedom without ME.
I repeat. I agree with your assertions that finance and usury have made a mess, but that in no way excuses the way you're trying to blame SS for what the finance industry was given license to do from a congress that issued itself license to do what it did with money that was never theirs the gamble with from day one. If SS is stable because it in effect is a lien against my home, if it's serving me it's not a problem. If it isn't serving you, you've had the right to opt out all along. If it's serving a secondary function for the stability of the US gov't it's also not a problem. If it's being abused as an open pot to plunder, everyone has a problem with that.
It would appear that you have embraced collectivism, by your statements herein.
It's a common mistake to presume "We, the People" in the Preamble means the people of the United States of America.
Contrary to popular misconception, governments have two jobs:
1. Secure rights, and
2. Govern those who consent.
Since the "only" consenting parties who ratified the USCON, were property owners who had paid taxes, there can be no assumption that "THE PEOPLE" unanimously consented to being governed.
That being said, the servant government operates to secure the rights of ALL the people (*unless waived) and govern that subset who granted consent.
Furthermore, if you read the Articles of Confederation *(1777) which were in force and effect at the writing of the USCON, you will learn that there is a distinction between the States united (United States of America) and the "United States" in Congress assembled.
So be careful in assuming that the "People of the United States" is synonymous with the people of the United States of America.
"The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government and not for the government of the individual States."
- - -John Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 7 Peters 204,(1822).
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it....."
- - -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia
In short, the "People of the United States" were subjects of the Congress, not of the states, and the private people are not parties to the USCON, a compact for specific performance.
If you doubt that Congress or the Founding Fathers knew of "people" who were not consenting "citizens" / "subjects", consider this:
"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states ..."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
https://www.pcip.gov/PreExistingCond...082310_508.pdf (https://www.pcip.gov/PreExistingConditionPlan_EnrollmentForm_082310_508 .pdf - broken link)
On Page 1, Section 3: Quote: [] I am a noncitizen national of the United States
In the 1993 edition of the 1992 US Code (50 titles), I found only ONE reference to American nationals.
Title 8, U.S.C.S 1502. Certificate of nationality issued by the Secretary of State for person not a naturalized citizen of the United States for use in proceedings of a foreign state.
The Secretary of State is authorized to issue, in his discretion and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by him, a certificate of nationality for any person not a naturalized citizen of the United States who presents satisfactory evidence that he is an American national and that such certificate is needed for use in judicial or administrative proceedings in a foreign state. Such certificate shall be solely for the use in the case for which it was issued and shall be transmitted by the Secretary of State through appropriate channels to the judicial or administrative officers of the foreign state in which it is to be used.
That is ALL that the Federal government will say about American nationals. No mention of any civic duties, taxes, or compulsory regulations.
Read the law yourself, find if I made a mistake, and let us all know.
I am not infallible.
I'm also in the camp that social security is nothing more than a ponzi scheme and should be done away with.
The dems try to give the false impression that you get out eventually what you've paid in. But no, it's the biggest form of wealth redistribution out there.
What about those who work 9 years, 80 hrs or so a week (my good friend from business school plans to do this), running his own business and decides to retire aftwerards? He will pay $60,597 in OASDI taxes and not see a dime back.
If taking this amount that he will never see isn't flat out stealing, I don't know what is.
Are you suggesting that my tax lady made me pay a much higher rate as a self-employed taxpayer? Of course, even wealthy people get to pay that withholding tax. Not on their millions or billions of income but on the first whatever the top is now. If not they are cheating.
No they dont. I havent paid withholding taxes in over a decade because as a self employed individual, I dont receive a paycheck. Most americans who are self employed file their business incomes on their personal tax returns and do not seperate the two into business taxes vs individual taxes.
in addition, the wealthy do not receive "income", most of them dont receive paychecks. They are wealthy because they receive capitals gains which isnt taxed until the investments get cashed out. And since they simply roll them over, you could tax them at 100% and they still wouldnt pay taxes..
Social Security was never meant to be something a person could live on but it was not a bad plan when it was created. It is the Congress that has ruined the system by spending the money paid into it.
As with most liberal plans, the justification is valid, its the carry out plan which gets poorly executed. Social Security is celebrated by liberals as one of the most successful plans in existance, which is quite sad considering the number of individuals who live in poverty while they collect.. A truly successful plan would have people retiring with their own investment income as a primary, with Social Security as a backup.. But we have just the opposite.. COMPLETE FAILURE..
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
Most of the money that my wife and I invested outside Social security has seen a severe drop because of our system's banking failure. If we had more than 10 years for the comeback we may be ok but until that comes about I believe that we can put the SS money to good use since we don't have the time to wait for the comeback.
Your failure to diversify doesnt mean Social Security is a success. Just because you need to collect off of it, and collect poverty income, doesnt make it a success..
I'm also in the camp that social security is nothing more than a ponzi scheme and should be done away with.
The dems try to give the false impression that you get out eventually what you've paid in. But no, it's the biggest form of wealth redistribution out there.
What about those who work 9 years, 80 hrs or so a week (my good friend from business school plans to do this), running his own business and decides to retire aftwerards? He will pay $60,597 in OASDI taxes and not see a dime back.
If taking this amount that he will never see isn't flat out stealing, I don't know what is.
How about those people who work until they are 60 and then die.. never collecting a dime. Had they been investing the very sums that Social Security took, they'd at least have something to pass onto their estate.. These people celebrating a plan that keeps people poor is sad...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
